Ed A defense of theism/deism

[Chanakya]

This thread's about a defense of theism/deism, that might include, apart from more general objective reasons, subjective reasons as well.

Since personal subjective ideas might be discussed here, I'll request other posters to be considerate/respectful in how they present any criticism they might want to make. (And I'm going out and saying this, because I'm taking the liberty of starting this thread myself , and getting this discussion going.)

-------

Context (copied from the Pascal's Wager thread):

... I'm a theist, but not a Christian. I believe in a generic omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity, which generally the Wager supports IMO. ...



...Occam's Razor on all the other gods. Non-Occam's Razor related points for the Wager's God.


I think that approach makes sense, but it will make for a possibly long (but interesting!) conversation. We could do it in this thread, or maybe in another.

If you are happy with that, I'll make a separate post in this thread to get us started. I'm not a Christian, so I'll be defending a more generic "God of the Philosophers" ...



... Yes, I think you can. Or at least I think *I* can, though it may be a long discussion, as per my invitation to discuss this above. ...

... That sounds interesting.

You’re right, though, this might be off-topic, in as much this pertains more to your specific reasons, and leading to your specific conception of God, rather than a more general defense of Pascal's Wager. To keep both discussions focused, I think it might make sense to start another thread. I'll start that thread right after I post this, and post the link below.

Although I'm going out and starting this thread, this is “your” thread, for you to present both general reasons to defend deism (or whatever particular form of God you choose to defend), as well as any subjective and/or personal observations you care to put out there. (And obviously, only to the extent you’re comfortable sharing anything personal, and only to the extent you yourself find this exercise meaningful. I'm taking the liberty of starting this thread on your behalf only to set the ball rolling, as it were, and as preferable to asking you, instead, to start a thread yourself on this. What and how much to discuss there, is entirely your call.)

 

[dejudge]

Theism is really an arbitrary irrational belief in an imagined God.

... I'm a theist, but not a Christian. I believe in a generic omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity.....

What is a generic God ?

Which book teaches about G'Don's generic God?

It is interesting to note that Christians were called atheists since at least the 2nd century.

Justin's First Apology

Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity..

Athenagoras' Plea for the Christians III

Three things are alleged against us: atheism, Thyestean feasts, OEdipodean intercourse..

 

[suren]

What is a generic God ?
Which book teaches about G'Don's generic God?

Also I wonder whether this God is generic enough since he requires faith in him ignoring the person's other virtues, such as compassion, kindness, honesty, generosity, etc.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What is a generic God ?

The only God we're actually allowed to talk about in God discussions for some reason.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- You don't get to get out of intellectual standards by just saying the word "subjective."

- Vague nonsense isn't more intellectually viable than detailed nonsense. "I'm a theist not religious" and "I'm not religious I'm spiritual" and belief in a vague God of vague vagueness is not "smarter" or more intellectually justified then belief in any one specific God or theology. The guy who is 100% sure that some kind of dragon lives in his garage is not displaying higher intellectual standards than the guy who is 100% sure that a 3 toed, green, female, 2 year old Mongolian Pygmy Forest Dragon lives in his garage.

 

[gnome]

An excellent way to put it JoeMorgue.

On what basis would one impart motives of any kind, let alone try to distinguish benevolence or malice, to a hypothetical universe-creator with any confidence?

Or even a creator with the capability of intent or agency enough to consider it a "creator" semantically?

I mean, it's fine to decide so if that's how you prefer to imagine the universe, but I expect by discussing it you are seeking a basis in reason.

 

[Darat]

- You don't get to get out of intellectual standards by just saying the word "subjective."

- Vague nonsense isn't more intellectually viable than detailed nonsense. "I'm a theist not religious" and "I'm not religious I'm spiritual" and belief in a vague God of vague vagueness is not "smarter" or more intellectually justified then belief in any one specific God or theology. The guy who is 100% sure that some kind of dragon lives in his garage is not displaying higher intellectual standards than the guy who is 100% sure that a 3 toed, green, female, 2 year old Mongolian Pygmy Forest Dragon lives in his garage.

Obviously not, females only turn green after they mature at 8 or 9 years.

Sheesh everyone knows this!

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is why I bristle so hard at the idea that replacing old school religion with newer (often still with pretensions to "ancientness" oddly enough) vague new age Hippie-ness is seen as a "step forward."

 

[Chanakya]

Theism is really an arbitrary irrational belief in an imagined God.



What is a generic God ?

Which book teaches about G'Don's generic God?

It is interesting to note that Christians were called atheists since at least the 2nd century.

Justin's First Apology

Athenagoras' Plea for the Christians III

Interesting, didn't know that.

Because they didn't worship the Roman gods, I suppose? Much as Christianity used to see (still sees?) all non-Christians (atheists as well as followers of other religions) as heathens. And as Islam sees all unbelievers (in Islam) as Kafirs.

 

[gnome]

This is why I bristle so hard at the idea that replacing old school religion with newer (often still with pretensions to "ancientness" oddly enough) vague new age Hippie-ness is seen as a "step forward."

I agree that it is, only in the sense that the vague new age Hippie-ness tends to be less willing to justify violence and misogyny. It is not really a step forward in the sense of an evidence-based look at reality.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I agree that it is, only in the sense that the vague new age Hippie-ness tends to be less willing to justify violence and misogyny. It is not really a step forward in the sense of an evidence-based look at reality.

I think separating intellectual standards and moral standards like this is problematic.

"It's okay if you believe in nonsense as long as you don't hurt anyone" is not a center that can hold.

And it leaves us standing there holding our (bleeps) with no way to combat it when it (usually inevitability) does turn to moral harm.

 

[Darat]

Interesting, didn't know that.

Because they didn't worship the Roman gods, I suppose? Much as Christianity used to see (still sees?) all non-Christians (atheists as well as followers of other religions) as heathens. And as Islam sees all unbelievers (in Islam) as Kafirs.

The difference between an atheist and a theist is that the atheist believes in one less god than the theist.

 

[Chanakya]

- You don't get to get out of intellectual standards by just saying the word "subjective."

- Vague nonsense isn't more intellectually viable than detailed nonsense. "I'm a theist not religious" and "I'm not religious I'm spiritual" and belief in a vague God of vague vagueness is not "smarter" or more intellectually justified then belief in any one specific God or theology. The guy who is 100% sure that some kind of dragon lives in his garage is not displaying higher intellectual standards than the guy who is 100% sure that a 3 toed, green, female, 2 year old Mongolian Pygmy Forest Dragon lives in his garage.

Agreed, absolutely. Vagueness and subjectivity aren't "smart", and nor do they give one a free pass as far as being reasonable.

But we don't know what those reasons are yet, because he hasn't even started discussing them! Isn't it kind of unfair to characterize someone's reasons as vague and/or nonsensical before they've even presented them?

Besides, as far as the "subjectivity", I'm not even sure the reasons that are proposed to be discussed touch on that at all. They may not, those reasons may turn out to be entirely objective. I added that descriptor because in case GDon wants to discuss his subjective reasons as well, then I for one am interested in listening.

 

[Chanakya]

The difference between an atheist and a theist is that the atheist believes in one less god than the theist.

Yep!

(Although -- sorry, small nitpick on that joke -- that would apply only to the mono-theist!)

 

[JoeMorgue]

But we don't know what those reasons are yet, because he hasn't even started discussing them! Isn't it kind of unfair to characterize someone's reasons as vague and/or nonsensical before they've even presented them?

Because pro-tip... because they will literally never characterize their own reasons because they don't actually have valid ones.

I get it, we're supposed to give the "benefit of the doubt" but this discussion literally always goes the same way and I'm tired going through the same steps.

 

[Darat]

Because pro-tip... because they will literally never characterize their own reasons because they don't actually have valid ones.

I get it, we're supposed to give the "benefit of the doubt" but this discussion literally always goes the same way and I'm tired going through the same steps.

And of course never let themselves be pinned down with an actual specific description of their god.

 

[Chanakya]

Because pro-tip... because they will literally never characterize their own reasons because they don't actually have valid ones.

I get it, we're supposed to give the "benefit of the doubt" but this discussion literally always goes the same way and I'm tired going through the same steps.

On second thoughts, it is probably me who's being unfair here. I shouldn't have put that word 'subjective' there in the thread title at all, given that I don't even know if subjectivity is at all part of the discussion -- although I myself am interested, even if some of those reasons do turn out to be subjective. That unnecessarily makes people less receptive to any discussion that might follow.

I think I'll request the mods to remove that word from the thread title.

 

[Darat]

Yep!

(Although -- sorry, small nitpick on that joke -- that would apply only to the mono-theist!)

Hardly a new joke, there are many versions of it - my favourite more up to date version is from Ricky Gervais

I don’t understand how you don’t believe in God.”

Well, you know how you don’t believe in Zeus?
Like that.​

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah but the problem isn't the word "subjective" it's the concept.

Either we let "Because magic" into the discussion or we don't. But without letting magic into the discussion there is no discussion. So the apologist will mumble-mush mouth their way into as much conversation as possible trying to get a conversation going to be a self feeding meta-conversation and then use that to justify the conversation.

In other words read my new sig line. That's what we're gonna get.

Ted: So why do you believe in God?
Bill: (Long, poorly formatted, stream of consciousness rambling about some deep philosophical statement about the question.)
Ted: That's not what I asked.
Bill: (Another long, poorly formatted, stream of consciousness rambling about a base philosophical debate and not the question)
Ted: Still not what I asked.

This cycle will repeat until:

1. Ted gets frustrated and says something vaguely snarky and the discussion will then become about how "mean" Ted is.
2. Bill tries to use the discussion about the discussion as proof that the question is valid.
3. Some other form of self-feeding meta-discussion about the discussion will drown out the question, which again the apologists will paint as a "win."

 

[Chanakya]

Hardly a new joke, there are many versions of it - my favourite more up to date version is from Ricky Gervais

I don’t understand how you don’t believe in God.”

Well, you know how you don’t believe in Zeus?
Like that.​

Not particularly funny, actually, is it, that version? (The original version is witty, while this one isn't.)

But Ricky Gervais's "jokes" are like that I suppose. Not particularly funny, any of them ... except when he says it you do end up laughing, sometimes.